Ayelet Shaked and the fascist ideology

Yesterday, Haaretz columnist Rogel Alpher published a piece titled “Israeli Minister Shaked Takes After Mussolini”. In it he opined that Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked was literally, not just metaphorically, a fascist. Alpher was referring to that speech where Shaked said: “Zionism should not continue, and I say here, it will not continue to bow down to the system of individual rights interpreted in a universal way.”

Ayelet Shaked

The minister’s announcement of a “moral and political revolution” aimed at strengthening national principles at the expense of universal individual rights was comparable to Mussolini’s “doctrine of fascism,” the columnist said. He cited Mussolini’s “revolutionary negation” of individualism and liberalism, wherein the nation “was a superior, super-personal reality … a moral law, a tradition, a mission binding together generations past, present and future, and all the individuals”(quoting from Jacob Talmon’s “The Myth of the Nation and the Vision of Revolution”).

Rogel Alpher

Alpher’s column came after Gideon Levy’s column, which was also based on the speech Shaked gave, on that same critical sentence about Zionism and individual rights. But Levy actually thanked Shaked for “telling the truth” and for “speaking honestly.” And that truth was, as Levy put it: “Zionism contradicts human rights, and thus is indeed an ultranationalist, colonialist and perhaps racist movement.”

But now we need to step back a bit, and combine these two angles into a kind of intellectual 3D picture:

If Alpher is calling Shaked an actual fascist, based upon what she said, and if Levy is concluding that those words are a true and honest representation of Zionism itself, then the combined logic must be, that Zionism is itself a form of fascism.

That actually makes a lot of sense. It doesn’t have to mean Zionism is a carbon copy of Italian fascism, just like the crime of Apartheid doesn’t require identical features to Apartheid South Africa (and as I have recently opined, Zionism is Apartheid, and worse). Racist, ultra-nationalist endeavors tend to flock together in alliance, just like the Mussolini-Hitler alliance, or more recently the Netanyahu-Orban alliance (wherein Netanyahu threw Jewish philanthropist George Soros under the anti-Semitic Hungarian bus). There has of course also been the actual alliance between the Zionist Revisionists of Zeev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky and the Italian Fascists. Jabotnisky’s ideology, which informed the Jewish terrorist Irgun and Stern Gang factions in Palestine, was the informer of Menachem Begin’s Herut, which morphed into Likud.

When Jabotinsky’s fighters were training in the 1930’s, a leading Italian naval publication stated:

“In agreement of all the relevant authorities it has been confirmed that the views and the political and social inclinations of the Revisionists are known and that they are absolutely in accordance with the fascist doctrine. Therefore, as our students they will bring the Italian and fascist culture to Palestine.” (Noted in Eric Kaplan, The Jewish Radical Right: Revisionist Zionism and Its Ideological Legacy, 2005, see p. 149-171).

Alright, alright, some will say – that’s the right-wing Zionism, but what about the left wing?

Well, I believe that Ben-Gurion’s famous words from 1938, where he said that

”If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel”

are an epitome of that essentially fascist ‘revolutionary negation of individualism and liberalism, wherein the nation was a superior, super-personal reality, a moral law’. It is that will to sacrifice individuals – aye, even children – for the supposed ‘greater national good’. Note that Ben-Gurion was not speaking about soldiers fighting in a war. He was speaking about children, who weren’t even citizens of any “Jewish state” and never signed up for it. Under this all-encompassing Jewish ‘national’ notion, every Jew is considered a part. This comes full circle with Netanyahu speaking on the supposed behalf of Jews all over the world, saying to them “Israel is your home” in the wake of terror attacks on Jewish targets.

All Zionists understand this, even if it is at an instinctive level. The will to sacrifice Palestinian rights (as well as other rights) for the ‘national Jewish home’ is a core tenet of Zionism. There are no real moral qualms in Zionism about ethnic cleansing of Palestinians; any such qualms are quelled by the claim that it’s ‘complicated’. When a Zionist like the self-proclaimed ‘leftist’ Israeli historian Benny Morris finally concedes the fairness of the term ‘ethnic cleansing’, it comes with the supposedly-exonerating caveat–

“There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing.”

Morris echoes Ben-Gurion’s words: “I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it” (as quoted in Morris’s own book Righteous Victims). Yet Morris opines that Ben-Gurion should have gone further in his ‘transfer’: “If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job.”

So these are the more ‘honest’ voices of Zionism. The voices that forgot to keep the mask of political correctness. They come from both right and left, but the right seems more prone to drop the mask.

Incidentally, Benjamin Netanyahu’s son Yair recently posted a virulently anti-Semitic meme, where George Soros is depicted as a global manipulator, controlling a reptilian, a caricature ‘Illuminati’ Jew, and a train of other figures who are supposedly the ‘food chain’ feeding off the Netanyahu family, all (except the reptilian) holding their hands in the “happy merchant” fashion. The meme, congratulated by the Nazi Daily Stormer as “awesome,” caused quite some outrage in Israel, especially in the left. But Communication Minister Ayoub Kara, who is Netanyahu’s ‘Arab puppet’, asserted that Yair Netanyahu was “just a kid playing on Facebook.“

Yair Netanyahu’s meme is an example of how Zionism brings anti-Semitism full circle (as I wrote last year). And when it does that, many distance themselves, temporarily, because it looks bad.

But what if it’s not temporary? What if Zionism is, indeed the embodiment of fascist ultra-nationalism, and is racist at its very core? This would mean that it is also, inherently, anti-Semitic, because it would turn against Jews for being Jews – if they do not toe the ultra-nationalist line. These would be “the wrong kind of Jews”, as Zionist leader (and later Israeli President) Chaim Weizmann said to Lord Balfour. The same Chaim Weizmann who met with Mussolini four times between 1923 and 1934.

Understanding that Israel is enacting Apartheid is not a very complicated conclusion nowadays. To understand that this Apartheid is part and parcel of the basic Zionist ideology informing it can be a bit harder, but it’s a logical step to make. Again, Israel does not have to copy South African Apartheid for the crime of Apartheid to be enacted, as was cogently and meticulously documented in this year’s UN commissioned report on Israeli Apartheid by professors Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley.

Likewise, Israel doesn’t have to copy Italian Fascism precisely for Zionism to be regarded as a fascist ideology. Alpher’s appraisal of Shaked’s words are actually an appraisal of Zionism, with its revolutionary, ultra-nationalist notions. And Levy says that Shaked is actually telling the truth about Zionism.

So the plot thickens, the net tightens. And for those who follow the logic of this, the question is really reduced to: Do you want to support a fascist ideology?

About Jonathan Ofir

Posted In:

152 Responses

Jonathan, once again I cannot refrain from congratulating you on an excellent analysis.
I can add 2 little bits: you mention that any potential qualms the/some Zionists may have with ethnic cleansing are quelled by the claim that it’s ‘complicated’.

Actually, they don’t find it complicated. As Tom Suarez mentions in his book “State of Terror”:

The final, cynical irony of Israel’s uprooting of Middle Eastern and North African Jews from their homelands is that the state now uses it as a racial ‘settling of scores’ for its own ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The former balanced out the latter—the same injustice having been committed against both ‘races’, the logic goes, the Palestinians have no grievance.

Furthermore, Zionism relies on antisemitism in the world to persuade diaspora Jews to emigrate to Israel, esp. now that Israel is losing the numbers game, what with perhaps as many as 1 million Jewish Israeli expats living in the US, as Mondoweis reported recently http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/many-million-israelis/

You didn’t really make an argument that Zionism was fascist just that like most societies it reserves the right to demand of its members sacrifices even at the cost of life for that society. The Allies did that in fighting fascism in World War 2. Fascism ceases to have any meaning if the notion of shared sacrifice is included in its definition.

I don’t believe Israel is Fascist. Israel probably has more fascist elements than most societies. But it has been under more pressure for much longer than most societies, and it is at a young and fragile stage in its national development. I think the 1990s it was becoming less fascistic. Had Oslo worked out Israel would be a much more liberal place today.

So the real question in a BDS context is do I support allowing Israel to work through the situational problems that have caused it to drift a bit towards fascism or would I rather see the society completely destroyed and replaced with an alien hostile society? And the answer is absolutely I would rather it be given time and help to work through the situational problems. Portugal under Salazar was fascist and there was no need to destroy Portugal. The fascist government was a rather good one that worked for the benefit of the Portuguese people and the world. Iraq was unquestionably a fascist society, a rather negative one, and I certainly would have preferred it could have been reformed rather than destroyed.

Destroying a society is a grave act. One shouldn’t do it over a political disagreement at this level. So no. Even if Israel became like Portugal, that wouldn’t cause me to stop supporting her.

When the Zionists destroyed Palestinian society it was in the context of an ethnic civil war where the Palestinians had brought in multiple foreign armies to invade their country so as to advantage their side in the civil war. It was also decades of failed attempts at reasonable compromise. Yes it is a grave act. And that was the sort of circumstance that calls for such a grave act.

Remark from Herzl to Nordau:
“(…) Look at Britain! It pours its excess population into the vast empire that it was able to acquire. Are we then so craven as to be frightened of the offer made to us? Starting from their national base, nations have built colonial empires that have made their fortunes. Let us accept the chance offered us to become a miniature England. Let us start by acquiring our colonies! From them, we shall launch the conquest of our Homeland. Let the lands between Kilimanjaro and Kenya become those of the first colony of Israel! They, rather than Edmond de Rothschild’s philanthropic supported refugees, will constitute the real Rishon le-Zion, the first fruits of Zionism, of the New Israel.”https://books.google.com/books?id=z99L5XBsbdkC&pg=PA244#v=onepage&q&f=false

Zionism was most certainly a threat to the non-Jewish persons of the hypothetical “Jewish” state.

“The Palestinians had brought in multiple foreign armies”??
Wha? They had the power and the agency to command foreign armies?
Remind us JeffyB, that these foreign armies fought almost exclusively in the areas of the Mandate earmarked to become Palestine – OUTSIDE the borders Israel had ALREADY declared. Israel was NOT invaded.

The first battle was at Kfar Sirkin. Within a few hours there were attacks in Haifa and in Jerusalem which under the partition was an international city. No it was not outside the borders of partition plan.

“When the Zionists destroyed Palestinian society it was in the context of an ethnic civil war where the Palestinians had brought in multiple foreign armies to invade their country so as to advantage their side in the civil war.”

You neglected to mention that when Polish born David Ben-Gurion (nee, David Gruen) et al. declared the “Jewish State” of Israel effective 15 May 1948, Jewish forces had already dispossessed and expelled 400,000 Palestinians – e.g., 30,000 from West Jerusalem in March (and a further 30,000 in May), 60,000 from Haifa in April, 75,000 from Jaffa in late April and early May.

When war then erupted due to necessary intervention by reluctant outnumbered/outgunned Arab state armies to stem the accelerating expulsion of Palestinians, a US proposed cease-fire was accepted by the Arab League but rejected by Israel.

During the war Israel seized 78% of Palestine (22% more than the Partition Plan recommended, including large portions of the proposed Palestinian state, e.g., Jaffa), expelled 400,000 more Palestinians for a total of about 800,000 and went on to destroy over 500 of their towns and villages, including churches, mosques and cemeteries.

In 1949, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) conducted a methodical survey that determined at least 726,000 Palestinians were made refugees during and prior to the 1948 Arab/Israeli war. As this figure did not include several thousand unregistered refugees, the generally accepted total was revised to 750,000. However, according to an official with Israel’s government at the time, even this number is too low: Walter Eytan, then Director General of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, referred to the UNRWA registration of 726,000 [refugees] as “meticulous” and believed that the “real number was close to 800,000.” (Norman Finkelstein, “Debate on the 1948 Exodus” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. XXI, number 1, autumn, 1991, footnote #4, p. 86.)

It was only the beginning of the Zionist’s conquest of Palestine and the expulsion of its essentially defenseless indigenous Arab inhabitants through armed might, several massacres, mass rape and intimidation.

BTW, as a precondition for UN admittance (after being rejected twice), Israel promised the UNGA and so declared by signing the 1949 Lausanne Peace Conference Protocol that it would comply with Resolution 194 (based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) calling for the return of and/or financial compensation for the then 750,000-800,000 Palestinian refugees. Needless to say, Israel has not complied.

Furthermore, just prior to and during Israel’s first invasion of Egypt in 1956 (in collusion with Britain and France), the IDF expelled about 25,000 more Palestinians and during and after the war Israel launched on 5 June 1967, the IDF expelled a further approximately 250,000 Palestinians.

The killing started Nov 30, 1947. Prior to the declaration of statehood the Arab Liberation Army (Syria), Arab Legion (Jordan) and Army of the Holy War (Palestinian / Egypt) were all involved.

You are confusing the history of the ethnic conflict with the war between states. Which is easy because they happened back to back. When the ethnic conflict started there was no Israel, there was the Yishuv. The ethnic conflict became officially a war between states and not a war within a state once Israel officially existed.

“When the Nazis destroyed Jewish society in German society it was in the context of the last World War war where the Jews had brought in multiple foreign armies to invade Germany so as to advantage their side in the World War 1. It was also decades of failed attempts at reasonable compromise. Yes it is a grave act. And that was the sort of circumstance that calls for such a grave act.”

“The killing started Nov 30, 1947. Prior to the declaration of statehood the Arab Liberation Army (Syria), Arab Legion (Jordan) and Army of the Holy War (Palestinian / Egypt) were all involved.”

Curious response, i.e., you previously stated that “Palestinians had brought in multiple foreign armies to invade their country so as to advantage their side in the civil war.” Pure bunk.

Arab state armies had no option other than to intervene. At least 400,000 Palestinians had already been dispossessed and expelled and they were fleeing into neighboring countries, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a consequence of the massive attacks on Haifa, West Jerusalem and Jaffa as well as massacres, e.g., Deir Yassin. Also, the Arab countries could hardly sit by and watch the horrors being perpetrated against the defenseless Palestinians by Jewish forces as per Plan Dalet.

Apropos your statement: “The killing started Nov 30, 1947.”
In his 13 December 1947 dispatch to London, Sir Alan Cunningham, the British High Commissioner to Palestine blamed the Yishuv for the deteriorating situation, including loss of life: “The initial Arab outbreaks were spontaneous and unorganized and were more demonstrations of displeasures at the UN decision than determined attacks on Jews. The weapons initially employed [by Palestinians] were sticks and stones and had it not been for Jewish resource to firearms, it is not impossible that the excitement would have subsided and little loss of life caused…. [T]here is reliable evidence that the Arab Higher Committee as a whole and the Mufti in particular, were not in favour of serious outbreaks.” (MEC: Cunningham Papers, box 2, file 3)

Ben-Gurion agreed with Cunningham. In a letter dated 15 December 1947 to Moshe Sharett, head of the political department of the Jewish Agency, he stated: “The [Palestinian] peasant masses are not taking part in the riots.” (Three months later, in a letter to Sharett and Golda Meir he observed: “The [Palestinian] Arabs in their great majority are not seeking war with us.”)

Shortly after Britain’s announcement that it intended to withdraw from Palestine beginning 15 May 1948, Ben-Gurion directed the Irgunists, Sternists and Palmach to increase the ferocity of their strikes against Palestinian Arabs. He ordered that “in each attack, a decisive blow should be struck, resulting in the destruction of homes and the expulsion of the population.” (Ben-Gurion’s Diary-in Hebrew, vol. 1, 19 December 1947)

Misterioso.
It should be noted that subsequent to the Arab Revolt (1936-7), the Palestinian male population was decimated – one in ten dead, imprisoned or in exile and it was illegal for a Palestinian to possess a firearm. By contrast, the British armed the Jewish Settlement Police, Jewish Supernumerary Police, and Special Night Squads. From that time until May 15 1948 when between 250,000 and 400,000 (latest research by Rosemarie Esber) had been expelled from their homes, the Zionists had a virtual turkey shoot.
The primary Zionist propaganda technique since has been to manipulate the time-line to suit the “Arabs attacked” balderdash. Put simply, the Palestinian resistance to Zionism was disarmed and demoralized, a fact the Zionists capitalized on to devastating and brutal effect until the League acted to stop the ethnic cleansing.

You are citing rhetoric that called for classical colonialism not genocide. In classic colonialism the subject population, its culture and its society get adopted in an almost wholesale way into the dominant population’s state. Change in the subject population’s culture can happen gradually in this structure. Because classical colonialism allows for the subject population to be absorbed into the dominant population’s economy it eliminates the incentive for genocide. That’s an alternative to smashing an existing society.

Your quotes are showing the opposite of the point you are arguing for.

|| JeffB: … do I support allowing Israel to work through the situational problems that have caused it to drift a bit towards fascism or would I rather see the society completely destroyed and replaced with an alien hostile society? And the answer is absolutely I would rather it be given time and help to work through the situational problems. Portugal under Salazar was fascist and there was no need to destroy Portugal. The fascist government was a rather good one that worked for the benefit of the Portuguese people and the world. Iraq was unquestionably a fascist society, a rather negative one, and I certainly would have preferred it could have been reformed rather than destroyed. … ||

I don’t think there’s any need to destroy Israel but it does need to reform…
– from a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews;
– into a secular and democratic Israeli state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally.

Israel also needs to address its other “situational problems” including its deliberate and unapologetic colonialism and (war) criminal behaviour.

Unfortunately, neither Israel nor Zionists seem in any hurry to do anything about its “situational problems”.

JeffB –
When you’re cornered, you do what most cowards do and quickly revert to whataboutery. Jeff Sessions – the Keebler Elf version of Ayelet snake eyes Shaked? Shaked wants to completely castrate any power that the israeli supreme court has! She doesn’t give a rattler’s ass about individual rights – it’s zionism 100% or nothing. And you steadily support it everything it does and if you don’t outright support the zionist experiment and all the horrors it has unleashed on the indigenous people of palestine – real living people mind you – not people from a so-called holy book that’s just a book, like so many that have caused the true believers to lose their way and their minds, to become exactly what they purport to be against, etc., if you don’t support what shaked and all her bloody brethren do on a daily basis, you do the next worst thing – you excuse all of it with a wave of your magical whataboutery wand or your wah-wah. Grow a f’cking spine would ya?

JeffB, you write “You didn’t really make an argument that Zionism was fascist just that like most societies it reserves the right to demand of its members sacrifices even at the cost of life for that society.”

But in my main quote of Ben Gurion in this respect, I precisely wrote:
“It is that will to sacrifice individuals – aye, even children – for the supposed ‘greater national good’. Note that Ben-Gurion was not speaking about soldiers fighting in a war. He was speaking about children, who weren’t even citizens of any “Jewish state” and never signed up for it.”

This mentioning was precisely in order to rebuff that claim which you come with, in advance.

Later on you defend Minister Shaked, simply calling her “Ayelet”, as opposed to for example “The Obama”. You seem to go to great pains to exonerate her as “not scary”. Are you friends with the minister? What is this populism really about?

I think I addressed that issue of children. Societies demand all their members make sacrifices, including children. Societies often lose children in their wars, and the allies did in world war 2. For example Russia lost 8.5 million to famine and disease as a result of the war. As we know those deaths fall disproportionately on children and the elderly. Lithuania lost almost 15% of its population. For a quick list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
You’ll see a small percentage of the dead were military casualties. There are smaller wars which are mostly restricted to militaries. But not all wars are restricted to militaries. Civilians die in large numbers in many wars. France didn’t let their lines collapse in World War I even though this meant poison gas would be carried into nearby towns where the civilians, including children had no protective gear. All societies reserve the right to sacrifice children for the cause that’s not unique to Israel.

As for not citizens. You can’t have it both ways here. Either Israel is a Jewish state or a zionist state. If foreign Jews have no relation to Israel then why would you expect Ben Gurion to be their protector? Their death or non death is something for their sovereign to be concerned about. Ben Gurion’s job is to exploit the trouble if possible for the advantage of his society, which is what he said. If conversely Israel is the Jewish state then Ben Gurion was their protector and sovereign then he has the right to act in their collective interest and not just their individual interest. You seem to be trying to give Ben Gurion the responsibility of a sovereign without the authority of one.

Later on you defend Minister Shaked, simply calling her “Ayelet”, as opposed to for example “The Obama”. You seem to go to great pains to exonerate her as “not scary”. Are you friends with the minister? What is this populism really about?

No I’m not friendly with Ayelet Shaked. She comes from a less formal society than Barak Obama. Obama was often criticized for his informality but he never went remotely as far as Netanyahu goes without criticism.

As for her populism its about intra-Jewish struggles. The descendents of the Yishuv members who lived on the farming collectives are considerably wealthier on average than most Israelis. The Israeli Labor left represents the class interests of the upper middle and lower upper class. Likud conversely tends to much broader in its appeal representing a greater percentage of the class interests across the board. Populism in most countries creates a class model where the middle is very broadly defined and then attacks both the upper and lowest classes as parasites. Think about Donald Trump’s, Ross Perot’s or Pat Buchanan’s rhetoric on both the wealthy and poor. In its neo-iberal rightwing form it argues that the poor have warped government to create benefits for the lower classes not available to the middle and thus weakening government control of the economy will benefit the broad middle. That’s the sort of politics that Likud style politicians (and by Likud here I’m including National Home and Yisrael Beiteinu which are basically just factions of Likud) preach. Nothing unusual in this. What distinguishes this from Conservatism’s rhetoric is it attacks the rich while mostly implementing the policies the rich want anyway. Likud broadly defined has been working for decades to build popular support in a formerly socialist (almost communist) country for much greater concentration of wealth to speed economic growth. Populism works well there since many Israelis have resentments towards the Ashkenazi Elite’s government, and there isn’t support for conservatism (though that’s changing). She’s doing what politicians all over the globe do to achieve that end.

As an aside among Fascist politicians they focus much more heavily on how the rich / corporations unregulated have warped government and thus argue for more regulation and direction not a more liberal economy. The distinction between Fascist economic rhetoric and the socialist / communist is there is usually a group of lower class enemies of the broad middle as well. This is how they get popular approval to create the mechanisms for social controls that at a later phase will be applied to the broad middle as well. Her brand of populism is yet another point that shows she’s not a fascist.

As for going to great pains… well yes. I think the attacks on her are grossly unfair. She’s an enormously popular politician, and the possibility she runs for PM over the next 2 decades are high. I’d like the discussion about her policies to not be unhinged from reality. I also happen to think the Bennett plan is the best peace plan on the table right now, and don’t want to see it discredited in the west by petty personal attacks.

@JeffB
Further to my last comment, I accidentally erased the following:

As for the volunteer, poorly armed Arab Liberation Army (ALA), under the command of Fawzi al-Qawukji, it was no match whatsoever for the well armed Yishuv forces even with the assistance of local Palestinians and a small number of neighboring Arab volunteers whose weapons were ancient.

JeffB: Because classical colonialism allows for the subject population to be absorbed into the dominant population’s economy it eliminates the incentive for genocide

Only if you consider genocide killing the subject population down to the last possible individual. The Spanish and Portuguese colonization of the Americas involved both mass killings (maybe even to this day) and inter-marriage.

That’s beside my point, anyway. Apologists for Zionism tend to stand on the moral highground that the Zionist movement was forced into violence because of the other side. Herzl’s quotes show he was contemplating violence well beforehand. And if he was willing to instigate a military invasion of Palestine, it follows he would have tolerated civilian casualties. So in the abstract his movement was a threat to those in the prospective “Jewish” state who weren’t Jewish. He personally made the decision that Zionism was going to be a movement of violence.

|| andrew r: … Apologists for Zionism tend to stand on the moral highground that the Zionist movement was forced into violence because of the other side. … ||

And as an apologist for Zionism, that’s exactly what JeffB does:

… If the Palestinians keep acting like a demographic threat, they will be perceived as a demographic threat and the Israeli nation will defensively crush them further. If the Palestinians act like Israelis they won’t be a perceived as a demographic threat and the Jewish Israelis will breed with them and then you have a real viable one state solution because there is very quickly (in historical terms) one nation. …

If that bitch in the basement keeps acting like a threat, she will be perceived as a threat and the rapist will defensively brutalize her further. If she acts like a lady she won’t be perceived as a threat and he will breed with her and then you will have a real viable peace because there is very quickly (in historical terms) one family.

Mass migrations often involve violence. There is nothing unusual in that. Rohingya Muslims got there from a mass migration. Obviously the Jews would have preferred their mass migration didn’t involve violence but certainly they understood when they undertook it that violence might result. Attempting to do something peacefully with the understanding violence might be necessary doesn’t contradict a plan that violence was a response.

Say for example a police officer attempts to apprehend a violent felon. The felon resists, the police officer grabs his nightstick and beats him into submission. The office didn’t initiate the violence but he understood that his actions might result in violence. I don’t violently attack police officers so even though I understand they are willing to be violent they don’t present a violent threat to me.

As for the Spanish and Portuguese examples you are quite correct. Today we have countries inhabited by Brazilians, Columbians and Argentinians not Spanish, Portuguese, Africans and native Indians. Their descendants no longer have their original national identities they have the fused identity of the new nation. That’s the process for peace in Palestine. That’s how the two people’s become Israelis and not Palestinians and Jews. Yes absolutely those are examples of nation building having worked. The less killing the better, and certainly the Spanish or Portuguese did far more killing than necessary I don’t want to defend their specifics. I think being fair is comparing Israel to the Portuguese in Brazil rather than current day France and they come out quite well.

As an aside since you brought this up I should note no one is calling for Spain or Portugal to be disbanded as a consequence of that killing though, that still is something uniquely reserved for critics of “Jewish crime”. I’d like to hear more discussion of 1647 every time Spain is mentioned if this is really about historical conduct and not about Jews.

|| JeffB: … Mass migrations often involve violence. There is nothing unusual in that. … Obviously the Jews would have preferred their mass migration didn’t involve violence but certainly they understood when they undertook it that violence might result. Attempting to do something peacefully with the understanding violence might be necessary doesn’t contradict a plan that violence was a response.

Say for example a police officer attempts to apprehend a violent felon. The felon resists, the police officer grabs his nightstick and beats him into submission. The office didn’t initiate the violence but he understood that his actions might result in violence. … ||

Comparing…
– the plan of Jewish supremacists (Zionists) to steal, occupy and colonize Palestine and establish in it a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”;
– to a (presumably well-intentioned) police officer attempting to apprehend a violent felon,
…is amusing for how utterly and Zionistically f*cked up it is.

The more accurate comparison is the plan of the rapist to kidnap women and chain them in his basement. Kidnappings often involve violence. There is nothing unusual in that. Obviously the rapist would have preferred his kidnappings didn’t involve violence but certainly he understood when he undertook them that violence might result.

And violence did result. But Zionists will tell you that the blame lies not with the rapist but with every ungrateful bitch who put up a fight.

As JeffB continues to demonstrate, Zionists are truly hateful and immoral people.

Even though this was the major tactic of the Zionist movement, it wasn’t the end in itself. They wanted to establish their own state authority over the land they were leading immigration to. That by definition was going to involve violence.

“I don’t violently attack police officers so even though I understand they are willing to be violent”

This whole analogy is risible and idiotic because Herzl’s remarks about invading “Eretz Israel” weren’t conditional on previous acts of violence against Jews in Palestine. He wanted an invasion to happen. I linked to an online copy of his entire diary so if you can find some material to prove me wrong, go ahead. The basic aim of the Zionist movement – a nation-state for a migrant population – was in itself a choice of violence. To say they would have preferred otherwise is inane.

“That’s how the two people’s become Israelis and not Palestinians and Jews.”

Whatever, if you think this idea can be sold to Israelis and Palestinians, have fun with that. I’m neither, so I’m not the target audience. It probably won’t work without Palestinians converting to Judaism, though.

You may be right about conversion. It may be the process of assimilation starts with small compromises, like learning Hebrew and over the long haul does involve full conversion. Though of course for that to work the bar to conversion needs to become much lighter more in line with American Reform Judaism which now encourages conversion at marriage. When Judaism was a proselytizing religion, especially prior to the first Jewish-Roman war it had intermediate forms and more fuzzy lines between Jewish and non-Jewish like you would typically see in a state church. Enhancing those traditions could be a major component in helping to ease this tradition.

Another possibility is something like what happened to Judaism and Catholicism in America where they were hollowed out. American Judaism is a Jewish flavored Protestantism. American Catholicism is a Catholic flavored Protestantism (as even the 19th century Pope’s admitted). So for example the adherents mostly believe in the 4 Freedoms even though both religions would naturally be hostile to this concept. Lay American Catholics deny baptismal regeneration in all but name… American Hinduism is undergoing a similar transformation. American Islam until recently didn’t even need to be hollowed out.

I can easily imagine religious diversity thriving in an Israel that has this form of assimilationist tolerance. There are lots of possible solutions to how this plays out.

As for the Israelis going for it. Jews aren’t stupid or poorly educated. Many of the great political scientists, sociologists and anthropologists are Jewish. They understand how states and societies are created. Look at how effectively and how quickly they create the Israeli society.

” Jews aren’t stupid or poorly educated. Many of the great political scientists, sociologists and anthropologists are Jewish. They understand how states and societies are created. Look at how effectively and how quickly they create the Israeli society.” “Jeff B”

ROTFLMSJAO! “You’re off to university. First time away from home. First time away from your synagogue community. Or perhaps you’ve had a year out after school and have been in Israel soaking up your Jewish heritage. Maybe you’ve been on a Jewish leadership trip organised by your youth movement or a Birthright tour

“You didn’t really make an argument that Zionism was fascist just that like most societies it reserves the right to demand of its members sacrifices even at the cost of life for that society” JeffB (Northridge)

Unless they happen to be “Religious Jews”.

“The Movement for Quality Government said it hoped that after a battle for 17 years for equality in military service, the draft law would now be applied equally to all Israeli citizens, without discrimination. The movement called on the Knesset to enact a new law with equality for all.

In Finland and Ireland and the UK , and all real democracies , all citizens are required to serve in times of national need . Only in Israel do cowardly religious freaks get a pass on risking their lives for their society.Must be something to do with their grip on the powers that be.

Israel,s greatest threat comes from within .Hopefully , this fissure will lead to a wider chasm and cause the fascist entity to crumble and disappear from the pages of time.

Zionism is evil and needs to be put to the sword of justice and buried forever.

If Israel,s Jews and their brainwashed apologists finally figure out how to make peace and live as equals with their neighbours, all the better but I am not holding my breath.

Actually in the USA as well people of various religions are not drafted. We don’t draft the Amish. Hasidic Jews mostly do civilian services which end up being a lot of military support roles so effectively they do serve. Moreover the number of Hasidic Jews volunteering for military service, especially among women is skyrocketing. It is a problem but the problem is resolving itself through negotiation and compromise. So, again, real Israel is a far different place than your warped caricature of it.

“I don’t believe Israel is Fascist. Israel probably has more fascist elements than most societies. But it has been under more pressure for much longer than most societies, and it is at a young and fragile stage in its national development. I think the 1990s it was becoming less fascistic. Had Oslo worked out Israel would be a much more liberal place today”

The “young and fragile ” bit almost had me reaching for my handkerchief or sick bucket or both.

Given the fact that you have completely glossed over/ignored the comment of Israeli JUSTICE (sic) Minister the adorable cuddly and lovable and oh so popular Shaked I do indeed think that you are having a laugh. She isn`t and that is the really frightening thing.

I don’t know what country you are from. If you are American is Ayelet any more rightwing than Jeff Sessions? Does she have less or more respect for the rule of law? And let’s compound that. Tell me honestly you wouldn’t rather her be President (if she were allowed) than Donald Trump. Here is a normal interview with her where she gets treated like a normal politician and we hear not totally shocking policies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd1PMgc-n8Q

Does she say some stuff I disagree with. Yes. But Obama also had policies I disagreed with. I think the Obama was one of America’s worst on accounting law. I think he came out great on IPv6 and then completely dropped the ball, damaging the global internet for decades to come. Those opinions didn’t stop me from voting for him and donating to his campaign.

My guess is that I’m to the right of you. You didn’t vote for Romney, Bush or Trump. She’s a rightwing politician, but I prefer her to most of the American rightwing politicians. Because she was involved in Zionist outreach 6 years back she’s known in America and thus the western pro-Palestinian crowd particularly dislikes her. A lot of what is written about her by the left is not fair to her. As a real person and a real politician she’s rather dynamic. She is not scary.

Jeff
Your claims of Palestininan inviting foreign armies to attack Israel is pure garbage ( this site has plenty of articles to confirm that and so are numerous books out there conforming the same fact – Isarel has always been the attacker )

Also your oblique reference to the failed negotiators desreve some clarification . The failed negotiations have failed because Israel always wanted them fail ,because peace was never the aim of Isarel.

The Rule of Law is an absolute. One cannot be “more or less” respectful of it
Israel’s very foundation stands in opposition to this principle. Shaked is just one minor figure in a long line of supremacists who claim exception on the basis of (you choose) race/religion.

Zionism is supremacism. Zionists believe that the religion-based identity of Jewish grants to those who choose to hold it the right:
– to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine; and
– to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them.

I don’t think there’s any need to destroy Israel but it does need to reform…
– from a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews;
– into a secular and democratic Israeli state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally.

Why secular when Finland didn’t bother you any? As for the rest it is doing that. The process takes time.

Let me just comment the reason you weren’t aware that Finland is a “supremacist” Evangelical Lutheran State is because the process has fully played out. It is non-controversial because the work is complete and has been for centuries. If you go back a few centuries to before this played out… you see the “supremacism” much more directly. The state violently repressed other religions. Certainly there is no tolerance in Finland for religious dissent. By World War 2 there wasn’t much left, Jews as usual being an exception. The heavily repressed Finnish Jewish population that didn’t flee was forced to fight on the side of the Axis.

The way the Israeli process will play out is the Palestinians are absorbed. There will be a few generations of half-Jewish, half-Palestinian children and then essentially no one is Jewish or Palestinian anymore at all. Everyone is just Israeli. That’s how you get from where Israel is today to where Finland is today.

So…the colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist nature and actions of Israel in the 20th and 21st centuries – and in the centuries to come – must be excused and permitted to continue because “if you go back a few centuries” Finland was then how Israel is today.

So…the colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist nature and actions of Israel in the 20th and 21st centuries – and in the centuries to come – must be excused and permitted to continue because “if you go back a few centuries” Finland was then how Israel is today.

While disagreeing strongly with your rhetoric … Yes from a utilitarian perspective the least bad most human option is to allow the process to play out. Unless you can come up with a more humane option that can actually be implemented, that is implemented by the people who live their not imaginary people that don’t, you are arguing for more death and more destruction than allowing this process to play out.

|| JeffB: … While disagreeing strongly with your rhetoric … Yes from a utilitarian perspective the least bad most human option is to allow the process to play out. Unless you can come up with a more humane option that can actually be implemented, that is implemented by the people who live their not imaginary people that don’t, you are arguing for more death and more destruction than allowing this process to play out. ||

The “utilitarian” process you insist should “play itself out” argues for more death and more destruction.

I advocate justice, accountability, reform and equality. I understand how these things might be disturbing to someone who defends colonialism and supremacism.

“If you go back a few centuries to before this played out… you see the “supremacism” much more directly. The state violently repressed other religions..”

WTF are you writing in here?? It was first in the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century small Jewish and Muslim minorities arrived to Finland as part of the Russian army. Some of them decided to stay and have since the time Finland became independent 1917 had same civil rights than the other Finns. Traditionally in the Eastern parts of Finland we have also had our Creek Catholic minority. I guess you should blame Germans for spreading their Lutheran Reformation to Finland, but that was already around 1600th century, long before our Jewish and Muslim minorities had even arrived..

And what is this obsession of yours to try to use Finland and Finnish history as an excuse for Israel’s cruelties anyway??

BTW, I am only happy to announce to you that finally our Finnish Broadcasting Network has sent their own correspondent to Jerusalem, so we will be getting here more, regular and closer look at what is going on in Israel. And yes, I checked her backgound, no Zionist connections what so ever. And I also sent her an e-mail and wished, she would meet people of Breaking the Silence and the Druze of the Golan and some other interesting people to hear their point of view and write articles about.

I have been training with a Finn for last few weeks Ante, just the sweetest most relaxed quiet man, but by all that is sacred he is brutal, huge, super fit and the blondest being I have ever seen, he is like a Labrador part way morphed into a Weimaraner, his blond is almost grey it’s so extreme.

So all this time Finland has been an idependent country, the Jews* have had equal civil rights, and they were NOT forced to fight in 2nd WW along with the Nazis, but many of the Finnish Jews happened to be living in the lost parts of Karelia. So they were simply defending their homes as were their other “fellow country men”..

*And you should remember that the Jews originally came as part of the occupyers army and were still allowed to stay. What there is written in your link, does not match with what you were writing here earlier. So stop making up your own stories and stick to your proven sources.

Reorganization of Judaism free of Kahanist Fascism/Zionism is the answer, for those who would like to bother. As Beinart said, it’s never going to be the same to be a Jew again

Alpher correctly identifieds Shaked as a fascist but he neglects to specify just what kind of Fascist she is – she is a Kahanist Fascist, a Jewish H*****ite Fascist, which is what Kahanism is

Kahanism is a crime against humanity, and Kahanist Apartheid is a crime against humanity

Jewish/Kahanist White Supremacism is flavor #29 of the 31 flavors of White Supremacism — nothing more and nothing less. Sorry for the ‘no special double standard for Kahanists’, not get out jail free card just because your fascism has it’s raised fist in a Star of David

The public spectacle of Jewish exceptionalism straining to somehow differentiate Jewish Supremacism from all other White Supremacism is entertaining and futile

@jeffb
” As a real person and a real politician she’s rather dynamic. She is not scary”.

If you care to check my profile you will see that I am a UK citizen. As for Shaked you are still having a laugh.As for the video I got as far as “Israel is the first Western Country” when talking about African illegal immigrants and that was more than enough. Israel is a MIDDLE EAST country

She`s not ” scary “. She is a particularly sad variety of Fascist and the “dynamics” which you claim she has as a politician are 100% within the surreal Ziobubble which is Israel. Outside of Israel ( and the US ) in truly democratic countries she and her repulsive Judocentric and undemocratic analyses would be ripped to shreds in any respected debating forum.

BTW You are still ignoring and effectively shying away from addressing what this creature actually said. Apart from anything else it is in direct contradiction with the Israeli Declaration of Independence. Her clearly stated”view” is that a particular religion and its rulings/teachings in this case Judaism should override universally accepted concepts and principles of democracy. That is quite simply medieval and 100% at odds with modern “western” 21st century concepts of justice and democracy. And to repeat this is from a so called JUSTICE ! Minister. Stuff Human Rights – Judaism comes first.

As for the video you referred to:
” Here is a normal interview with her where she gets treated like a normal politician and we hear not totally shocking policies”

You are having even more of a laugh on that one. The fawning “interviewer “just fell short of licking her toes in his preamble.

OK UK examples then. You still have a state church with the powers of a state church. English democracy is weird in that there are a lots of powers of offices that haven’t been officially repealed but no one considers to still be valid. I think time will tell. That being said:

Up until 2003, not the middle ages, your secular courts had the power to defrock ministers.

As for respectable countries, true democracies… that’s just name calling. Try it without the hyperbola. Specific acts that you claim that are unique to Israel and don’t apply in an analogous way to English history.

Now onto one place in your response you did do this.

Her clearly stated”view” is that a particular religion and its rulings/teachings in this case Judaism should override universally accepted concepts and principles of democracy

No she said nothing of the kind, ever. What she has argued for is that the people of Israel have the right through the democratic process to form a government which represents their views on how best to marry church and state. That Israel is not bound to be secular in any particular regard and that laws including the enforcement or non-enforcement of religious doctrine is a matter for public debate and consideration. Far from being an opponent of democracy she is proponent of it. What you are complaining about is not that she is non-democratic but rather that she is democratic.

Now what she is as an opponent of mandatory secularism. But that’s not the same thing at all. Nor is it anything that Israel has ever claimed to believe in. Arab politicians in the Knesset have been floored by the fact that they are able to asked to vote on matters of Jewish religious law.

Israel absolutely has a full blown state church with subsidiary churches. Essentially what England established after the Irish Church Act of 1869, again not the middle ages.

All passed parliament directly. Parliament also has the ability to go the other direction and pass legislation about the CoE so:
The Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and Other Ecclesiastical Office Instrument 2010

The CoE has final authority over all marriages including those of non-Christians from a legal perspective. The Fleet Street laws are still in effect though not much in use.

They directly have the power to tax for some schools.

Then we get to their paper powers which while not exercised are quite broad. Technically CoE can still try matters and create common law. Technically the courts can find for many criminal offenses and simply submit to the magistrate for punishment. And this btw still includes the one capital crime still on the books in England, Popish recusants (i.e. those who don’t attend church and act in the interest of the Pope) can still be burned at the Church’s discretion.

Likely to be enforced. Absolutely not. But history shows these powers on the books which no one thinks about often suddenly become relevant again under changing circumstances.

The Church of England is established by law and it has the power to discipline members of the clergy and to disqualify people from office under processes which are part of the law of the land. These processes are operated by the bishops and their duly appointed assistants, sometimes operating as Ecclesiastical Courts or Courts Christian. They are not secular courts staffed with secular judges. The decision in 03 was to withdraw from these courts the power to undo the ordination as priests of serious offenders and leave only the power to prohibit them from officiating. This was because it was envisaged that someone convicted might be found innocent later on and there is no process of reordination – this for reasons that go back to the Donatist controversy of the good old fourth century.
The most famous case of ecclesiastical jurisdiction was that of the Reverend or ex-Rev Harold Davidson in 1932. Prostitution and lion-taming were involved. His family is still campaigning for the verdict to be overturned.
If the question is about discipline within organised groups then that kind of discipline seems to be inevitable to a degree, though discipline through social censure and freezing-out is obviously dangerous, sinister and prone to excess.
Ms. Shaked seems to have started from the principle that any idea of absolute individual rights is to be rejected. I’d agree that absolutism about rights is not tenable because, to my mind, it is too difficult to define rights and because there is sometimes a conflict with common sense and natural humane intuition. But one of the things about common sense is that it is common – and to set aside individual rights for the exceptional interests of one party to a situation, or according to the special perceptions and intuitions of one party, must amount to setting might above right, that is to the negation of morality. That is indeed what many might call fascist.

A Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, laid before both Houses of Parliament pursuant to the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919

ZionistBhole on September 12, 2017, at 1:29 pm:

All passed parliament directly. Parliament also has the ability to go the other direction and pass legislation about the CoE so:
The Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and Other Ecclesiastical Office Instrument 2010

The CoE has final authority over all marriages including those of non-Christians from a legal perspective. The Fleet Street laws are still in effect though not much in use.

They directly have the power to tax for some schools.

Then we get to their paper powers which while not exercised are quite broad. Technically CoE can still try matters and create common law. Technically the courts can find for many criminal offenses and simply submit to the magistrate for punishment. And this btw still includes the one capital crime still on the books in England, Popish recusants (i.e. those who don’t attend church and act in the interest of the Pope) can still be burned at the Church’s discretion.

Likely to be enforced. Absolutely not. But history shows these powers on the books which no one thinks about often suddenly become relevant again under changing circumstances.

Catholic emancipation in the UK came in 1829. There is no vestige or hidden trace of the medieval De Heretico Comburendo laws. There is a certain delirium in getting drawn into discussions of such things as the Ecclesiastical Pensions Measure, so Ersatz’s representation of maniacal laughter is very appropriate.
The UK, like Finland, has no record of excluding massive numbers of former residents and is not surrounded by descendants of such people claiming a right of return. The sovereign power of the UK, like that of Finland, is not exercised over great numbers of people who are disfranchised. No right to do anything approximating to such things (rights which would, if they were claimed and enforced, indicate supremacism) are in fact claimed in the name of any religion – or as yet in any other way.
Utilitarian benefit – greatest happiness of greatest number – is sensible enough in many contexts but is often hard to calculate. Israel and the Zionist system have, to state the obvious, made many people happy but at the cost of very cruel treatment, not just disadvantage, for others, extending to the loss of political rights often considered crucial for the pursuit of happiness. The example of the removal of these rights by force and falsehood, not yet corrected by any new dispensation or agreement, is a very bad example which will exert malign influence over the generations. I can’t see how to avoid the idea that the situation calls for protest and pressure for change.

Staggering, JeffB:
“Civilians die in large numbers in many wars. France didn’t let their lines collapse in World War I even though this meant poison gas would be carried into nearby towns where the civilians, including children had no protective gear. All societies reserve the right to sacrifice children for the cause that’s not unique to Israel.”

But in the discussed quote of Ben Gurion, not only was there no war yet (it was 1938) – there was no Israel either.
And no, societies DO NOT have the right to sacrifice children. He, I thought that’s what Elie Wiesel was saying that Jews had given up 3.500 years ago, when he chided Hamas for supposedly doing it, in summer 2014?

You seem to be such a fervent admirer of and subsciber to this ‘Jewish State’, that for you it transcends time, place and age. You are PRECISELY the embodiment of the fascism discussed.

My populism? I’d don’t think I’d even call myself a populist I tend to be an anti-populist. I’m a moderate Democrat, the kind who really like Barack Obama and was excited to vote for Hillary Clinton. Not particularly politically interesting at all. Populism in the USA is more of a Republican gig, though we need to see the impact of Bernie Sanders in 2020 to be sure.

But in the discussed quote of Ben Gurion, not only was there no war yet (it was 1938) there was no Israel either.

Hitler was at war with Eastern European Jewry. He wasn’t at war with England. Thank you for the correction regarding 1938. That was poorly phrased, though I wanted to make the main point since you were applying it to Israel. In 1938 Ben Gurion headed the Yishuv. While the Yishuv had less authority than a Jewish state, the Zionist movement did by that time claim for itself total authority over global Jewry. Ben Gurion was the best we had in leadership. And thus the same argument applies regarding that these kids didn’t sign up….

And no, societies DO NOT have the right to sacrifice children.

Cool then tell France they need to disband after their misconduct in World War 1 with regard to holding the line rather than surrendering and thus exposing many thousands of children to poison gas.

when he chided Hamas for supposedly doing it, in summer 2014?

I’m not sure what specific you are talking about or the context so if we go far here you are going to have to catch me up. But yes Hamas as the duly elected and quite popular leader of the Palestinians people has the authority to decide on the Palestinian collective welfare including killing their own kids. I can disagree with their choices and do believe they are pointlessly throwing their children’s lives away on an ineffective strategy. But I don’t question their legitimacy to make those choices, they have the right to choose a strategy I consider terribly considered. The people of Gaza are entitled to self determination and that’s part of self determination. One could argue I imagine that the strategy is so bad that in the name of humanity Palestinians should be deprived of self determination and their government forcible replaced. But that’s probably getting us off topic. Again hard to judge without knowing precisely what you are asking me to respond to.

You seem to be such a fervent admirer of and subsciber to this ‘Jewish State’, that for you it transcends time, place and age.

Yes and no. I have two roles here my personal belief and Zionism. Zionism does assert that. To disprove Zionism’s claims, and have intellectual integrity one has to assume those claims are true and show contradictions. Simply assuming they are false proves nothing. Many of the anti-Zionists shockingly given how much time they spend talking about Zionism have never bothered to read any Zionism and think it through from a honest and charitable perspective. A bad argument is a bad argument regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the argument.

Now I personally tend to think that early Zionism’s claim that Jews were a nation in say 1880 was a load of hooey. It is entirely possible that in say 1917 I would have been an anti-Zionist. But arguing that Jews were not a nation is 1917 is very different from arguing that Israeli-Jews are not a nation in 2017, and that global Judaism is becoming a nation. Zionism achieved its objectives. The facts regarding Judaism have changed. Moreover these national claims did exist within a Jewish context for many centuries, claiming they didn’t in line with Arab propaganda is simply dishonest. It would be honest to say these national claims existed in a nuanced, complex and conflicted context that Zionism decontextualizes them some. That’s the sort of discussion that I would like Mondoweiss to be having., and sometimes this website does achieve. Less propaganda and more nuance.

Moreover I don’t expect Zionists of any stripe to distinguish between Jews and Israel. The Ingathering of all the Exiles is Israel’s national mission. I expect them to disagree with my more nuanced opinions regarding Zionism. That’s a legitimate difference of opinion.

You are PRECISELY the embodiment of the fascism discussed.

I think your fascism detector is broken. I don’t mean to be insulting but I’m not sure you know anything about fascism. Just to pick an example that you should have noted, I tend to be a rather aggressive advocate of utilitarianism in politics. Fascists were and remain strong opponents of utilitarian metrics of policy. A utilitarian can see violence as in and of itself destructive but support its use for an end. For a Fascist violence is an end, it is a self justifying act to pick some relevant quotes: “Art and war are the great manifestations of sensuality; lust is their flower.” or “We will glorify war—the world’s only hygiene—militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman.” Those are not remotely similar ideas to utilitarianism or anything I defended here.

I suggest you read some of the Fascists and learn what they actually do believe if you want to run around critiquing politicians and other people with the term. For a political movement Fascists are simply exceptionally deep regarding the role of art in the development of humanity. I can’t think of any western political movement since the High Renaissance that had a political philosophy of art as deeply considered as the Fascists. There is a lot to disagree with, but at least you would understand where Fascists are coming from.

And then maybe you can read Zionism and see it within its own context rather than trying to impose your context on it.

“For a political movement Fascists are simply exceptionally deep regarding the role of art in the development of humanity. I can’t think of any western political movement since the High Renaissance that had a political philosophy of art as deeply considered as the Fascists.” “Jeff B”

I know, it’s great stuff! Have you seen all the hilarious caricatures of Jews in Der Sturmer? And the brilliant filmaking of “Jud Süß”? And “Triumph of the Will” was, well, a triumph!

“Jeff , your comments about fascism are deeply offensive as is your pseudo historical superiority and distorted world view devoid of truth and compassion.”

How about we have a little compassion for a man who has nobody else to talk to? I mean, without them backing hurriedly away, or calling 911.
Can’t you see “Jeff B” is lonely and he is trying to make contact?

“Destroying a society is a grave act” but israel attempted to do it “peacefully with the understanding violence might be necessary” like a cop having to arrest a “violent felon”?

it astounds me MW hosts paragraph after paragraph of this nakba denying crap. it just poisons our threads in the name of what? discourse? why not advance the idea hitler attempted the rid the world of jews gently, with little violence except when it might be necessary?

If you read Hitler’s comments of early 1940s in Table Talk regarding his priorities and justification for them, there’s no sky between Israel’s Minister Shaked and Hitler (admirer of Mussolini). This includes his comments on the ethnic state’s priority over the individual,tension with current government apparatus and PTB, media, religion, etc., and on the role of Art, and on Mussolini, etc. It’s clear as a bell, Shaked is a pure fascist. For Hitler, he worked for the German people. For Shaked, she works for the Jewish people–in exactly the same way, and using very similar language. The eye motes are fully shared.

@jeffb
“OK UK examples then. You still have a state church with the powers of a state church. English democracy is weird in that there are a lots of powers of offices that haven’t been officially repealed but no one considers to still be valid. I think time will tell”

The powers of a State Church ?????

I haven`t got the foggiest idea what you are rambling on about. English democracy is not repeat not weird.In the UK Elected Members of Parliament and a Parliament in a Democracy ensure and action universal equal human rights for all individual UK citizens irrespective of their religious beliefs with no rabbis or mullahs or cult zealots pulling the levers behind the scene.

Once again why are you avoiding the fact that your beloved Shaked is calling for democracy/universal rights to be subject to an overriding religious cult. That is what she is saying.

English democracy is not repeat not weird.In the UK Elected Members of Parliament and a Parliament in a Democracy ensure and action universal equal human rights for all individual UK citizens irrespective of their religious beliefs with no rabbis or mullahs or cult zealots pulling the levers behind the scene.

I don’t think that ben Gurion’s statement is proof of fascism, unless all nationalisms that are willing to go to war are perforce fascism.

When J Ofir cites the number of times Chaim Weitzman met with Mussolini, what is that about? This is analysis? This is street corner petty nonsense. Did the US have a consulate in Rome? Was the US therefore fascist? Amateur to include such stuff.

YONAH FREDMAN- “I don’t think that ben Gurion’s statement is proof of fascism, unless all nationalisms that are willing to go to war are perforce fascism.”

Fascism is a much abused and overused term. Strictly speaking, fascism refers to the control of a modern political economy through the military-industrial complex. It is a permanent war economy. For example, the US utilizes a form of fascism to stimulate and guide the economy which is why the US has been at war with the entire Third World since the end of World War II. Currently, American fascism is becoming increasingly overt. Likewise, Israel is engaged in permanent war with its neighbors and is joined at the hip with empire. Yet, many people confuse fascism with the specific trappings of the militaristic and authoritarian Nazi and Italian fascists.

“Modern fascism should be properly called corporatism, since it is the merger of state, military and corporate power.” (attributed to Benito Mussolini)

As an aside, prior to World War II, Mussolini was much admired in the West for his control of the political economy. Hitler, too, for that matter. The modern capitalist economy is much too complex for laissez-faire to work. Control and stimulation are necessary, it is only a question of the specific means.

The most famous case of ecclesiastical jurisdiction was that of the Reverend or ex-Rev Harold Davidson in 1932. Prostitution and lion-taming were involved. His family is still campaigning for the verdict to be overturned.

That sounds like an amusing story. Will have to look it up.

Ms. Shaked seems to have started from the principle that any idea of absolute individual rights is to be rejected. I’d agree that absolutism about rights is not tenable because, to my mind, it is too difficult to define rights and because there is sometimes a conflict with common sense and natural humane intuition. But one of the things about common sense is that it is common – and to set aside individual rights for the exceptional interests of one party to a situation, or according to the special perceptions and intuitions of one party, must amount to setting might above right, that is to the negation of morality.

There aren’t two parties in the society to this conflict. The conflict here is between the Knesset and the Supreme Court primarily. Nor is Ayelet representing necessarily the stronger party at a societal level, She’s basically representing the pollis and the left / Supreme Court is primarily representing the Ashkenazi elite. It is a bit odd to refer on a leftist discussion board to talk about the “people” overturning rules placed upon them by the elite as a negation of morality. On a monarchist board sure. On a conservative board maybe. Here!?

If you mean by weaker party the non-Jews in Israel (as opposed to western leftists who are secularists) they tend to be mixed on these issues. Because Israel creates subordinate religious bodies for things that are explicitly Jewish as Judaism integrates more deeply into the state: Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bahai, Samaritans get more autonomy for their communities. So for example Palestinian Catholics tend to be in wildly in favor of desecularization overwhelmingly preferring the advantages of autonomy. On the other side there are groups that worry about the difficulty of integrating into the mainstream and discrimination. A mostly secular Israel with some Jewish aspects is seen as a lot easier integrate into than one that is less secular. Again though while I don’t have good polling to have numbers intuitively the poor among the minorities would lean to Minister Shaked’s position the richer would lean towards the Supreme court’s. So even with non-jews you might have your power dynamic backwards as to who is the weaker party.

That is indeed what many might call fascist.

This board tends to lie about Israel and grossly exaggerate stuff that is partially true. They tend to misunderstand a lot. Then on top of all this when there isn’t a debate about the facts they tend to hold Israel to a ridiculous standard. The left in general tends to throw around “fascist” rather lightly in ways that have nothing to do with fascism. So yeah they might call it fascist, and they would be wrong. Allowing the democratic apparatus of a country to decide on its laws rather than a intellectual aristocracy isn’t introducing fascism. Fascism is generally rather hostile to democratic debate.

There is no need to throw around “fascism” when discussing the relative role of the legislative branch and judicial branch in determining laws. No one on either side of those debates is a fascist in most countries including Israel.

Given the dialogue we are having in this thread the “fascism” charge seems based on ignorance and a desire to see the worst.

Fascism is generally rather hostile to democratic debate. Jeff B…..That sentence leaves your argument floundering. Israel is a Jewish Supremacist State with seperate laws for Jews and Palestinians. Palestinians get jailed for stone throwing but Jewish Settlers do not….etc…..etc. The laws are staged as a Jewish advantage over Arabs and any attempt at true democracy is squashed by the Zionist Fascist Regime is it not?

The laws are staged as a Jewish advantage over Arabs and any attempt at true democracy is squashed by the Zionist Fascist Regime is it not?

There is no Zionist Fascist Regime. As for “true democracy” I assume you mean a secular Western style democracy. In which case I’d just assert there is no attempt this at it. It is something that western liberals like and seem horribly upset that Israel doesn’t have. But essentially no meaningful group actually involved in the conflict wants a western european goverment, there isn’t any meaningful group pushing for it. The Israelis originated primarily from Eastern Europeans and so prefer many of their norms of government you see in Russia, Romania, Hungary. The Mizrahi Jews act within that system but [ull in some concepts from Arab style governments. The Palestinians similarly don’t have a whole lot of Western Europeans. Concepts like the secularism of the French Revolution play little part in either culture.

As for advantaging the Jews yes. Israel is a Jewish state. That may make it an ethnic democracy, but that’s not the same or even much related to fascism.

Ethnic democracy? I suppose. The US was a Christian, ethnic democracy that only represented white, male landowners once. Our domestic fascists would love nothing more than a return to those days. Nazi Germany came into being democratically in a Western style, ethnic democracy. What’s not to love if Israel becomes something similar with a little tribal theocracy thrown in to leaven the loaf? That’s no one’s business but there’s. Right?

Well, not when it disenfranchises half the population under state control, destabilizes the world, costs American taxpayers billions of dollars and corrupts their government. Then it’s not just their business anymore.

As you say JeffB Israel is not a western democracy, never was a western democracy and shouldn’t be a western democracy. s

So much for the so called “shared values” that Israeli politicians keep barking at the US and their fellow lap dogs in US Congress and the Media.

Back to the original article: Bottom line is that ALL nationalist movements are the start of fascism. And Zionism is nationalist to its core and is the current extreme nationalist — and in turn fascist — movement of the times.

Whites were not an ethnicity in the 17th century. But absolutely many of the territories in America were ethnic democracies in the 17th and early 18th century. They diversified later.

Israel doesn’t corrupt the American government. That’s just leftist paranoia. The vast majority of Americans disagree with the leftist position on international relations as shown by countless issues. Rather than admit their ideas are unpopular and broadly rejected after due consideration by the populus most likely because they are bad ideas, they turn to wild conspiracies involving manipulation and propaganda. American foreign policy on China, Latin America, Africa, Europe and the Middle East mostly represents an attempt to build a non-contradictory policy from the conflicted opinions of what Americans think their foreign policy should be. As the polling and in depth analysis regularly done demonstrates. There is no illuminati.

The Mussolini picture is a bit off up there.
Zionism is clearly from the same source as the Nazi branch of Nazifascism than “classical” Italian fascism; its extreme nationalist, racial supremacist and genocidal character is definitely the one with the most weight; the ideological precedence is on racial purity before monopoly capitalist, corporate domination.

As for its total contempt of all international norms, proud promotion of aggression and war, police state in contravention of all democratic rules, all those characteristics, all those characteristics are shared by a large number of states and “democratic” parties, including our very own Democrat Party. They are far from being a distinctive feature. In fact, the speech Mussolini was making when this picture here was made, from the balcony of the building in Piazza Venezia, was not substantially different from what we routinely hear from Obama, Queen Hillary etc. Shaked et al.’s words, on the other hand, are often Hitlerian in essence.

RE: Yesterday, Haaretz columnist Rogel Alpher published a piece titled “Israeli Minister Shaked Takes After Mussolini”. In it he opined that Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked was literally, not just metaphorically, a fascist. ~ Ofir

(moving this down to keep it out of the noise since you are responding with facts)

JeffB:“The killing started Nov 30, 1947. Prior to the declaration of statehood the Arab Liberation Army (Syria), Arab Legion (Jordan) and Army of the Holy War (Palestinian / Egypt) were all involved.”

Misteroo: Curious response, i.e., you previously stated that “Palestinians had brought in multiple foreign armies to invade their country so as to advantage their side in the civil war.” Pure bunk.

What is bunk? They did both.
Japan invades Manchuria in 1931 and they bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. Sides in a war can engage in multiple actions.

Arab state armies had no option other than to intervene. At least 400,000 Palestinians had already been dispossessed and expelled and they were fleeing into neighboring countries, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a consequence of the massive attacks on Haifa, West Jerusalem and Jaffa as well as massacres, e.g., Deir Yassin.

Of course they had other options. They could have for example enthusiastically welcomed Israel as a new neighbor, condemned the Palestinians and coordinated with Israel on repatriation. If you mean they liked the option of war better, I agree. But that’s not due to lack of options.

Also, the Arab countries could hardly sit by and watch the horrors being perpetrated against the defenseless Palestinians by Jewish forces as per Plan Dalet.

They sat back and watched all sorts of other horrors being perpetrated. And they perpetrated many themselves both before and after. So yes they could have and in fact did in comparable situations. I think you mean you agree with their decision, which is fine. But “could not” is simply nonsense.

Apropos your statement: “The killing started Nov 30, 1947.”
In his 13 December 1947 dispatch to London, Sir Alan Cunningham, the British High Commissioner to Palestine blamed the Yishuv for the deteriorating situation, including loss of life:

The Jews did not ambush their own bus near Kfar Sirkin
The Jews did not ambush their own bus near Hadera,
The Jews did not position snipers near Jerusalem and Haifa.

Those 4 attacks started the war. The Palestinians did them. The Palestinians themselves had a month where they could have denounced the attacks cooperated in arresting perpetrators and paid reparations before the counter attacks started. Now I get that some British people would have preferred that the Yishuv not respond to Palestinian violence. And that’s what the quote shows. There are plenty of quotes from Brits about unjustified the colonists were in responding to British violence against Boston in Concorde and later battles as well. The British are entitled to their opinion.

What you are not entitled to do is claim the Jews started this ethnic civil war. The Palestinians did that. Now certainly it is fair to say that after the Palestinians started an ethnic civil war a month latter the Jews decided to start hitting back with counter terrorism and things escalated.

Further contrary to your portrayal the Jews lost the first major battle the blockade of Jerusalem in the month of January. If the Palestinians weren’t fighting a war how did they win a battle against the Haganah, Jan – Mar 1948? So no your timeline is still off. There was no simple rioting. There was back and forth terrorism for a bit more than a month and then the first full on battle, again initiated by the Palestinians.

@jeffB
A quick reminder it is 2017 AD not 1517 or 1617 AD. Your link to a byegone age in England as some sort of proof that UK democracy is not dissimilar to Israeli democracy (sic) is truly bizarre. You should scroll forward and think in the present and not dwell on the past when attempting to evidence your claims. To your credit you seem to have moved on at least from AD70

Ref the 26 Bishops. The House of Lords is a secondary parliamentary body consisting of hereditary peers , Honours Peers and the Peer Bishops to which you referred with an increasingly ambiguous role in UK democracy. It is unelected and there are increasing calls for it to to be elected. Its principal role and function is to oversee and advise on proposed Government legislation and in theory act as a “check” on Parliamentary Legislation eg legislation which potentially challenges or undermines universal human rights but at the end of the day it is the democratically elected House of Commons and the elected Members of Parliament who govern on behalf of the the UK populace.

Back to the role of the bishops. Comparing what powers they have to Jewish Rabbis in Israel or Moslem Mullahs in Saudi or Iran is a joke. It may not have been so in 1517 but I repeat it is now 2017 and you should really try to focus on what is and not what was. What is left in the present with regards to the House of Lords is a rump of anachronistic “powers” which are becoming increasingly toothless and largely irrelevant when it comes to major governmental legislation.

I have reread your take/justification of what Shaked said. For all your ducking and diving and whataboutery – she is calling for Universal rights to be subjugated to the politics and “morals” of a religious cult = Judaism. It may well increasingly be the will/choice/preference of Israeli Jews and being the majority in the State of Israel they will probably achieve it but it is the antithesis of Western Democracy the basic pillar of which is the protection of universal human rights for all irrespective of politics or creed.

So your choice as with others is to accept that Israel is not and will never be a Western Democracy and like a lot of soft Zionists you are reluctant to look at that particular mirror. Thus your knee jerk defence of the Shaked and her fellow Zionist travellers and what the likes of Barak and Yaalon have identified as their Fascist agenda.

OK I won’t “duck”. Israel is not inhabited by westerners. Israel is not located in Europe or North America. Israelis don’t share the same governing concepts or history as Western Europeans and their descendants. Israel is not a western democracy, never was a western democracy and shouldn’t be a western democracy. The ongoing ties to European culture is Israel’s vice not its virtue. The more European Israeli culture is the less Israel can successfully peacefully integrate into the region in which the country exists. And in culture I’m including Israel’s political culture.

The best outcome for Israel’s is to be a bridge state between the Christian and Islamic world in the same way that Turkey and Lebanon are. I am thrilled by the fact that Israel is part of an alliance with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, even though I think the basis of the alliance is paranoid and stupid on all their parts. I’d love to see that alliance grow into economic and cultural exchanges. And I say that fully understanding the fact that this sort of cultural interchange means inevitably the government would more grow to more closely resemble the Egyptian and Saudi government. While I like Israelis participating in seminars with French or American lawyers I’d be far happier if those exchanges were happening with Jordanian, Egyptian and Iranian lawyers.

When I talk to Israelis and they know what Seinfeld is I’m not happy about that. When I hear about Israelis getting all gaga about the Egyptian soap opera Haret al-Yahud I am thrilled. I love Israel. I want what is best for Israel. I care about her long term success more than almost anything else. Deciding whether I want Israel to grow increasingly distant from my personal political ideology so as to benefit her long term success in living in peace among her neighbors is not a remotely hard decision to make.

That not ducking enough for you on the issue?

_________

As for the historical claims, your claim was that Shaked was a fascist. Are you now asserting that England was fascist 150 years ago?

As for the House of Lords, as I said your democracy is quite weird. But I suggest you look at the powers of the house and consider what an aggressive House of Lords could do with those powers, not the rather passive one you have now.

I am thrilled by the fact that Israel is part of an alliance with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, ….. I’d love to see that alliance grow into economic and cultural exchanges. And I say that fully understanding the fact that this sort of cultural interchange means inevitably the government would more grow to more closely resemble the Egyptian and Saudi government.

OMG, we are really entered into Bizarro land with Jeff B.

But reality is this is how Zionist think and the Thugs of Egypt and KSA are now blood brothers to the Zionist regime. Jeff B is telling the dangerous truth.

There is an enormous price to pay for playing with Thugs, Criminals Sycophants.

Ossinev, history shows the true value of the House of Lords. Take, for example, the conflict with Napoleon. The House of Peers, throughout the war, did nothing in particular, and did it very well. The result? Napoleon was thrashed and packed off to St. Helena, and Britain became Top Nation. What could have been more satisfactory?

If the Lords had not, in their wisdom, refrained from interfering, there could have been Bonapartes ruling us today.

@jeffB
Slowly but surely getting there. You have now moved forward from the 17th to the 19th Century. Still avoiding that mirror though. Can`t have your cake and eat it. Your beloved Israel does not want to “integrate” into the Middle East and IMHO the average Jewish Israeli left middle centre right or loony right or seriously loony right see themselves as Westerners and can`t understand why fellow Westerners are criticising them when they are keeping all those smelly Arab and Persian Moslems at bay. Zionist ideologies and objectives are the direct opposite of any idea of “integration”. Israeli Zionists and their supporters in the West don`t want to cosy up to their Moslem neighbours in the region. Yes they will try to as and when as part of their strategy to control the region and in particular Iran but as to seeking to become some sort of “bridge” state as you describe- hilarious !. For you to actually think that this is part of the thinking of Shaked and her fellow travellers is a simple denial of Zionist realities.

As for the colonised Palestinians – Zionists have never,don`t now and will never want to form “bridges” with them since they regard them as being illegal squatters in the Chosen Land. Extermination is of course not an option ( remember it is 2017).and in the absence of wholesale ethnic cleansing ( remember 2017 and those smelly neighbouring Arabs will not allow it ) They simply want them to give up and go away somehere/anywhere and the plan is and has always been in their efforts to achieve this goal to make their lives unbearable and as ever the best way to do this ( in the good old Fascist tradition ) is to brutalise the most vulnerable ie the women and the children.

The big problem for Zionist is that the Palestinians despite their self serving leaderships are proving to be infuriatingly resilient and latterly some of Shaked`s fellow travellers I believe are increasingly mooting the idea of paying them lots of money to emigrate somewhere ( not sure whether they see this as coming out of the Israeli budget or from US (Western) taxpayers . The even bigger problem for them is yes you have guessed it – it is 2017 = smartphones/internet/social media.

Loved the”aggressive House of Lords” bit ! There has got to be at sitcom in that somewhere.

“The big problem for Zionist is that the Palestinians despite their self serving leaderships are proving to be infuriatingly resilient and latterly some of Shaked`s fellow travellers I believe are increasingly mooting the idea of paying them lots of money to emigrate somewhere ( not sure whether they see this as coming out of the Israeli budget or from US (Western) taxpayers . The even bigger problem for them is yes you have guessed it – it is 2017 = smartphones/internet/social media.”

With a stamp of Netanyahu approval, right-wing party conference discusses their plan to annex the Palestinian territories and offer a surrender-or-transfer ultimatum

… “The vision of the decision plan is not new,” Smotrich said. “These are the foundations on which Zionism was erected. We do not assume that there are two narratives here that are equal. There’s one side that’s correct, and another that is undermining the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.”

Smotrich added, “We have to engrave in the consciousness of the Arabs and the entire world that there is no chance of establishing an Arab state in the Land of Israel.”

The Smotrich plan presents a kind of surrender-or-transfer ultimatum to the Palestinians in which “two alternatives will be offered to the Arabs of the Land of Israel:

“1. Anyone who is willing and able to relinquish the fulfillment of his national aspirations will be able to stay here and live as an individual in the Jewish state.

“2. Anyone who is unwilling or unable to relinquish his national aspirations will receive assistance from us to emigrate to one of the Arab countries.
There is also a third option.

“Anyone who insists on choosing the third ‘option’ – to continue to resort to violence against the Israel Defense Forces, the State of Israel and the Jewish population will be determinedly handled by the security forces with greater force than at present and under more comfortable conditions for us.”

The plan further calls for a “settlement decision.”

Smotrich proposes offering “self-government” to the Arabs in the occupied territories, who “would be divided into three regional municipal governments that will vote in democratic elections,” based on districts.

According to the plan, “These governments suit the cultural and extended-family structure of Arab society.” The objective is “to dismantle the Palestinian national collective.” It is stressed that “the Arabs of Judea and Samaria will be able to conduct their own daily lives, but in the first stage will not be able to vote for the Israeli Knesset.”

As Smotrich himself wrote in the past about the plan, “The big challenge in this context will be the democratic challenge; the need to persuade the world that among all the different alternatives, the alternative of democratic rights without the right to vote for the Knesset is the least bad alternative. It is indeed a challenge, but we can meet it.”
Racists? Us?

National Union members seem offended when asked to explain why their plan isn’t racist. “God forbid,” said party secretary Ofir Sofer. “It’s clear that there are difficulties in discussing this using the concepts we have today. But it’s not racist,” he said.

Sofer added that although the plan uses the term “the Arabs of the Land of Israel,” it does not mean that Israeli Arab citizens would lose their citizenship. …”

uh oh. part of what netanyahu said in his video address to the conference:

Up until not so many years ago, this country was deserted and abandoned, but since we returned to Zion, after generations of exile, the Land of Israel is flourishing,” said Netanyahu in the recorded greeting.

Netanyahu is a below average leader on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have been critical of his handling of it. His love of tactics and lack of strategy doesn’t help in this area of policy. His rhetoric is often dreadful that quote above being a good example.

you mean his propaganda? you mean his lying is often dreadful or unconvincing, that quote above being a good example.

No I mean his rhetoric. Economically Palestine was dead before the Jewish immigration. Culturally Palestine was dead. The malaria infested, unmaintained, poverty stricken territory in the Ottoman Empire the Jews were returning to was still habitable by humans in some parts and in those parts was inhabited. Huge chunks were deserted. Palestine as a place of political importance and even as a true center of religious leadership for the world had been abandoned. Take for example when Netanyahu lives. Caesarea in Judaea was a world class port. In the 3rd century the Byzantines continued to use it as a great port city. Then the Palestinians arrived. By the 9th century it was still a city though only of local importance. In the 13th century it was still an important town when the crusaders finally invested in the infrastructure again at least some. When the Jews arrived in the late 19th century it was at best a small fishing village built upon ruins.

Entirely uninhabited no. But calling that deserted and abandoned does not rise to the level of a lie. I’d prefer neglected and mismanagement. I think deserted and abandoned creates too much room for misunderstanding.

and when you say “in this area of policy” do you mean the policy of annexation and ethnic cleansing?

Annexation yes. Annexation of the territories, coexistence and incorporation of the people into Israeli society.

Palestine Saying there was nothing there is a gross exaggeration.

and when you say “in this area of policy” do you mean the policy of annexation and ethnic cleansing?

why jeff, i am not sure what you mean. there is plenty of room for agreement in a statement where i request your clarification.

No I mean his rhetoric.

for your edification the definition of rhetoric is

the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.
synonyms: oratory, eloquence, command of language, way with words
“a form of rhetoric”
language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

and you were responding to my comment where i bolded a certain passage of netanyahu’s. specifically:

Up until not so many years ago, this country was deserted and abandoned

so, would you consider that closer to “effective or persuasive speaking or … figures of speech and other compositional techniques” or a lie?

here is the definition of propaganda:

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

It’s really silly to argue that the “empty land” is a “major claim” of Zionism.

do tell!

The point is that everyone knew that the country is inhabited. No one claimed that it’s an empty country….What is interesting about the anti-Zionist position is the fact that any silly claim about Zionism can be made, and everyone in the anti-Zionist camp will repeat it. It’s even more interesting to note that the claims can even be self-contradictory, and that always seems to be quite fine. So, you can read in the anti-Israel literature that the evil Zionists from the beginning plotted to remove the Arab population from the country to make room for the Jewish state AND you can read that the Zionists claimed that the country was empty.

and this wasn’t merely one comment, he went on and on just like you trolling the thread. when everyone knows zionist pushed that myth and still push it today as evidenced by the PM’s recent address — here we have netanyahu repeating the same meme within days after this conversation. and you call it “rhetoric”. so i just wanted clarification.

JEFFB- “Economically Palestine was dead before the Jewish immigration. Culturally Palestine was dead.”

Do you have an aversion to documentation? Or do you just prefer making up fanciful tales? Is this what they teach you at Jewish summer camp? You should at least quote and cite the pamphlet. But credit where credit is due, your reference to the economic benefit of the crusades for the hapless locals was truly inventive. You just can’y beat a murderous invading army when it comes to jump-starting a sluggish local economy! I can see that you take your white man’s burden seriously. Or should I say Ashkenazi man’s burden?

Almost economically dead, Brewer. When the Palestinians weren’t fighting off the mosquitoes, they exported huge quantities of the fine oranges they had developed, and the splendid olive oil soap they made.

so the BB stands for Bin Brandeis, you people never change, so the question remains who will

“Deliver the poor and needy, out of the hands of the wicked.
Deliver the poor and needy, out of the hands of the wicked.
Jah, Jah
Foundations of the earth are out of course
Man so blind, they neither see nor understand
They walk in darkness
They walk in darkness
Jah, Jah
Deliver the poor and needy, out of the hands of the wicked.
Deliver the poor and needy, out of the hands of the wicked.”

its makes a sense because

“Jah standeth in the congregation
And rules amongst the gods.
How long will ye judge unjustly, accept the persons of the wicked?
Defend the poor and fatherless,
Do justice to the afflicted and needy.”

|| RoHa: … When the Palestinians weren’t fighting off the mosquitoes, they exported huge quantities of the fine oranges they had developed, and the splendid olive oil soap they made. ||

Oranges and soap are nice, but given the billions upon billions of dollars the Palestinians received from the U.S. over the decades – along with unwavering military, political and economic support – one would think they could have at least developed cherry tomatoes and Intel chips.

I suggest you read the original. Measures like output per acre and other profitability metrics were much much higher on the Jewish collective farms. A good ROI is vital to running a successful economy. The Palestinian economy was a basket case.

I suggest you read the original. Measures like output per acre and other profitability metrics were much much higher on the Jewish collective farms.

and i suggest you open the links provided — which link to and cite the original.

n December 1945 and January 1946, the British Mandate authorities carried out an extensive survey of Palestine, in support of the work of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. The results were published in the Survey of Palestine, which has been scanned and made available online by Palestine Remembered; all 1300 pages can be read here.

i’ll save you the trouble.

So, according to the Survey of Palestine, who really made the barley fields of Beersheba bloom?

Palestine grain harvest

The British government survey found that in 1944-45 Palestine’s farmers produced approximately 210,000 tons of grain.

About 193,400 tons of that grain were cultivated on Palestinian farms; about 16,600 tons were cultivated on Jewish farms.

See the precise numbers, from a scan of the relevant page of the Survey of Palestine, here.

Who made the melon patches of Jaffa bloom?

The British government survey found that in 1944-45 Palestine’s farmers produced approximately 143,000 tons of melons.

About 136,000 tons of those melons were cultivated on Palestinian farms; a little over 7,000 tons were cultivated on Jewish farms.

See the precise numbers, from a scan of the relevant page of the Survey of Palestine, here.

Who made the tobacco fields of Safad bloom?

The British government survey found that in 1944-45 Palestine’s farmers produced approximately 1,683 tons of tobacco, on 28,169 dunams of land. Virtually all the land under tobacco cultivation was Palestinian.

Who made the vineyards of Hebron bloom?

The British government survey found that in 1944-45 Palestine’s farmers produced approximately 40-50,000 tons of grapes, and between 3-4 million litres of wine. About 86% of the land that produced these products was owned and cultivated by Palestinians.

See a scan of the relevant page of the Survey of Palestine here.

Who made the olive groves of Tulkarm bloom?

The British government survey found that in 1944-45 Palestine’s farmers produced approximately 79,000 tons of olives.

About 78,000 tons of those olives were cultivated on Palestinian farms; a little over 1,000 tons were cultivated on Jewish farms.

See the precise numbers, from a scan of the relevant page of the Survey of Palestine, here and here.

Who made the banana groves of Tiberias bloom?

The British government survey found that in 1944-45 Palestine’s farmers produced approximately 8,000 tons of bananas.

About 60% of the land that produced these bananas was owned and cultivated by Palestinians.

See the relevant page of the Survey of Palestine, here.

Who made the vegetable fields of the coastal plain bloom?

The British government survey found that in 1944-45 Palestine’s farmers produced approximately 245,000 tons of vegetables.

About 189,000 tons of those vegetables were cultivated by Palestinian farmers; about 56,000 tons were cultivated by Jewish farmers.

See the precise numbers, from a scan of the relevant page of the Survey of Palestine, here.

So, on the eve of the partition resolution, in which the United Nations proposed to allocate 55 percent of the land to Jewish Palestine (including those parts that produced most of Palestine’s leading crops, with the sole exception of the olive crop), and 45% to Arab Palestine, Palestinian Arabs were producing:

92% of Palestine’s grain
86% of its grapes
99% of its olives
77 % of its vegetables
95% of its melons
more than 99% of its tobacco
and 60% of its bananas.

Palestine’s agricultural produce at that time had an annual value of approximately 21.8 million pounds sterling; 17.1 million of which was produced by Arab cultivation, and 4.7 million by Jewish cultivation. (See the exact numbers here).

So, who made the desert bloom? The Palestinians made the desert bloom.

So even with their super-efficient methods, the Jews were only producing a small fraction of the agricultural produce of Palestine.

But all this is, actually, irrelevant. Even if the Palestinians had been living in holes in the ground and eating nothing but mosquitoes, the Zionists would still not have been justified in establishing their state.

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.